Look At Our Families

As a kid growing up in the sixties and seventies, life was fun. Sure, we were in the midst of Vietnam and Watergate and I have vivid memories of young men and women demonstrating against our government but still, life was fun.

School was also fun. We still had to worry about math, science, reading, and history but for the most part, teachers made it as enjoyable as possible. Some were better than others but almost all were patient to a goof ball, class clown, who went to great lengths to avoid doing homework at all cost while having trouble sitting still in class. There was no Columbine and gangs were non existent except for in large cities.

Today, rarely does a day go by where there is not a news story about some kind of school violence. As a teacher, this troubles me greatly because I know it was not always this way.

In 1984, when I began teaching at Clifton Middle School in Monrovia, California, life was much different than it is today as a high school teacher in Hemet, California. When I began teaching, droves of "boat people" were arriving daily to southern California and filling our schools with children from far off places. Almost all came with a sense of hope for a better life despite their fears.

Our school was filled with more ethnic groups than I could count and yet it was rare for a fight to break out on campus. I took pride in the after school intramural program I established that brought many of these groups together in competition. Everyone respected the no fighting policy and I never came close to having to enforce it. I was equally pleased with the school fair I spearheaded which brought our students and faculty together in projects that resulted in food booths and games set up on our school's blacktop.

In 1986, my wife and I moved to a small town in northern California called Red Bluff where many of the students were often country bumpkins. While not always the greatest students, these young men and women were very polite. On more than one occasion, after a student was rude to me in class, several others would come up to me after class and apologize to me for the treatment I received. They always assured me it would never happen again and then they would find that rude student and "teach him a lesson."

Just the other day at the high school I work at, we had a student assembly. It was promoted for two weeks and we used an assembly schedule where classes that day were shortened. Unfortunately, during the assembly, two fights broke out and at least one student was arrested.

Had this happened twenty years ago, it would have been a major story in the local Red Bluff paper. Sadly, it did not even warrant a mention in Hemet's because they were busy covering the story of another near by high school that had seventeen students arrested after they began to fight with the school's resource officer causing police to converge on the campus and resulting in a school wide lock down. There was also additional coverage of the bomb plot uncovered at another high school somewhere else in this country.

People can blame who they want about our declining test scores and standing on the international level of academics. However, over the last twenty-eight years, I have taught at eight different schools, worked with twelve principals, seven superintendents, and countless school board members and not once have I ever heard any of these people ever say they support student violence and disrespect or suggest when it happens it is the fault of our schools. And yet, it is all too often the schools getting blamed for low test scores.

Poor student academic performance, school violence, and disrespect toward teachers, administrators, and school resource officers are the end result of one thing; a poor home life.

Monrovia, in the mid 80's, was not a thriving city on the outskirts of Los Angeles but rather a convenient place to raise a family for single mothers and unemployed adults. Still, despite this, when I called home on students who were not performing or behaving as they should, I almost always received the full support of the parent. They'd even come in and shadow their kid for a day if that was what was needed. Despite their struggles, these parents believed in education and wanted more for their children than they had.

Today, that is rarely the case despite the similarities that exist between Monrovia then and Hemet now. Parents who do come in all too often do so pointing a finger and raising their voices at the school rather than taking ownership of the problem they brought into this world.

Recently, I had a father try to convince me that the reason his daughter was behaving so poorly in class the week before was because this week she was "getting ready to have her period." Another parent claimed the note she brought to me was signed by him even after I pointed out I had two examples of his signature that were nothing alike. And last year, one mother told me the best part of her day was watching her son walk out the front door in the morning and her worst was seeing him return in the afternoon.

I would like to say these are the exceptions and not the rule but that is not the case. So hopefully, no matter your age or circumstance, when you read the stories about school violence, you will stop and think about where this disregard for our education system has its roots. Sure, the public school system is in need of many fixes but none nearly as needed in far too many homes across this country.

Answer The Question, Newt

The other day, CNN news man John King began a Republican debate by asking Newt Gingrich if he wanted to comment on his ex wife's claim that he wanted to maintain an open marriage. Newt's reply, in which chastised King and the media for asking such a question, drew loud applause and eventually a standing ovation. It's too bad he did not answer the question.

Thanks to the lies and indiscretions of Bill Clinton, questions like the one asked by John King to candidates with a checkered past personal life, like Gingrich, are fair game if you are running for public office.

Newt's response would have been a proper one had this been 1992 and he was being asked what kind of underwear he wore as was the case with Bill Clinton. However, when a candidate for president is on his third marriage and his current wife was the congressional staffer he had an affair with while married to his second wife, Americans are entitled to ask questions about the fitness of his personal life, past or present.

Candidates with questionable past financial dealings or voting records are asked and expected to explain themselves when they run for office so there is no reason one with a questionable past personal life should be excluded. Bill Clinton was hounded by the media over these matters as was Herm Cain, who recently dropped out of the primary process as a result.

These are difficult and challenging times for this nation and there is nothing wrong with voters wanting a leader they can be assured is not going to conduct himself in a manner that will adversely affect his ability to lead. George W. Bush was asked about his past drinking problems and Ted Kennedy never escaped questions about Chappaquiddick. To ask a candidate whose second wife claims he wanted to maintain an open marriage to explain himself is perfectly fair.

What's more troubling, Newt did not provide an answer, only a commentary about the media. If indeed Newt wanted an open marriage, he should admit it rather than hide behind a rehearsed response aimed to garner the vote of Christian conservatives. By simply telling us he has returned to his Christian roots is not an answer. Newt wants and needs the support of conservative Christians if he is going to have any shot of defeating Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination so it becomes easy for him to tell people about how he has grown closer to God rather than telling him he was once an adulterous male who wanted to have his cake and eat it.

However, Newt did not have this relationship with God when he was speaker of the house. His ethics were called into question and he eventually was voted out of office only to cash in as a well paid consultant to major lobbyists. If he is elected as our next president, many will wonder how he will handle the trappings of power that come with being the most powerful person in the world. Whoever our next president is, Americans deserve knowing we have a leader who will not embarrass the office or the nation because power went to his head.

Nothing about President Obama's past would indicate such a question should be asked of him. The same is true with Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. However, this is not the case with Newt Gingrich and he needs to be held accountable for failing to provide voters with an honest answer to a fair question.

What's So Wrong With Euthanasia?

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, decided it is within the rights of any woman to end a pregnancy under certain circumstances and guidelines. Whether or not you agree with the court's decision is irrelevant. What matters is the court ruled that women have control of their bodies which in essence means all citizens of age have control of their bodies. However, this is not true.

Today, 34 U. S states have the death penalty as part of their criminal justice sentencing. Criminals found guilty of certain crimes and circumstances may face execution.

In cases of both abortion and execution, it can be argued that the state is allowing for the taking of a human life and depending on your religious beliefs, may also be argued we are doing "God's work."

All states also have laws that allow the use of deadly force by law enforcement in an attempt to protect and serve its citizens. Few would complain about the police shooting a crazed gunman who takes hostages but again it could be argued they are doing the work of God.

Unfortunately, we do not allow citizens, under certain circumstances, to take control of their bodies and decide for themselves whether or not it is time to cash in their chips. High rise buildings and hotels have windows that do not open up to prevent citizens form ending their life. Bridges and over passes are covered in wire to prevent someone form throwing them self over to their demise. Why?

No one wants to be at the receiving end of a deranged person who decides your car is the perfect target to toss them self into so they can end their life which is what happened to my brother one morning on the way to work. You also do not want to be the person assigned to clean up after a college student decides to leap to their death from the top of a nine story building

like I once had to thirty years ago.

You can easily argue that in either case, the suicidal victims were mentally ill and if they had just received the proper mental health support they might have gone on to live productive lives. But what about those who are not mentally ill? What about those who are only guilty of having grown old or terminally ill? Should they not have more of a say as to how and when they pass?

Eighty to ninety percent of all the money we spend on medical care during the course of our lives is spent in the final two years of life. This is neither cost effective nor fair to the dying person who may prefer to leave this world sooner and leave behind whatever money they may have to loved ones.

What is so wrong with an elderly person who has decided they have lived enough and they have nothing left to offer this world from taking their life? Is it so wrong that they choose to go out on their own terms rather than feel like a burden to their family? The only people who benefit from keeping an old person alive is often times the medical industry.

Now, I am not suggesting we start authorizing the killing of elderly or sick people. However, I do think the decision to live further or not should be theirs just as it should be a woman's decision to decide whether or not it is best for her to go through with a pregnancy. What is the big deal if someone with a terminal illness decides they would rather swallow a few pills and end their life rather than go through a slow process that may end up leaving their loved ones drained while emptying their savings? Some, perhaps many, would choose to die on their terms with their dignity rather than on society's terms.

Does it make us a worse society if a cancer patient who has put all his affairs in order and said all of his good-byes decides to die on his terms rather than be kept alive as long as possible? We allow citizens to donate their organs to others upon death in order to help someone else live longer. Family members often are encouraged to "pull the plug" so doctors can harvest their organs for someone else. Isn't this playing God? A person of sound mind should be allowed to die in the manner of their choosing and not be forced to resort to extreme measures.

If you support a woman's right to an abortion or believe in either the death penalty or use of deadly force, you should support euthanasia. We either have total control over our bodies or none at all. You can not play God in some cases of life and death and not in others.